ReviewBrain sciences2026
Beyond Biomarkers: Reclaiming the Central Role of Clinical Neurophysiology in Neuromuscular Disorders.
Review in Brain sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past two decades, advances in molecular genetics, immunology, neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, and artificial intelligence have substantially transformed the diagnosis, classification, and treatment of neuromuscular disorders. However, increasing biological precision has also highlighted an important distinction between identifying disease mechanisms and characterizing their functional expression. Clinical neurophysiology occupies a specific position within this evolving diagnostic landscape by directly assessing nervous system function and providing objective information on impulse conduction, neuromuscular transmission, motor unit integrity, physiological reserve, and disease activity. Consequently, neurophysiological assessment contributes not only to diagnosis but also to differential diagnosis, longitudinal monitoring, prognostic assessment, and therapeutic evaluation. In this critical review, I examine the factors that have progressively shifted clinical neurophysiology from an interpretative clinical discipline toward a more procedural role. Using representative examples from myasthenia gravis, immune-mediated neuropathies, myopathies, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, I discuss how physiological information complements molecular, serological, imaging, and other biological biomarkers. I further examine the emerging role of artificial intelligence, including its potential for automated signal analysis and quantitative assessment, as well as current limitations related to generalizability, validation, and overreliance on pattern recognition. I propose a complementary conceptual framework in which biological and molecular approaches characterize disease mechanisms, while clinical neurophysiology defines their functional expression and clinical relevance in the individual patient. Within this framework, clinical neurophysiology should not be considered an alternative to precision medicine, but an integrated physiological dimension of it, connecting biological characterization with clinically actionable functional information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.